25 November 2018 4:19 PM

For anyone who still has delusions about 'Tommy Robinson' - what you need to know.

Here are two messages for defenders of 'Tommy Robinson' ( do please check the origin of his stage name, explained in the article to which I link below) . One, you must choose between him and me. If you seriously imagine that a liking for what I say is compatible with the Thought of Yaxley Lennon, then you are utterly mistaken, and must have misunderstood everything I have ever said or written. . I loathe everything he stands for, and I am sure it is mutual. Please waste no time here trying to persuade me that I should have any time or sympathy for such a person. I would very much rather if you went away and never came back, than entertained the fantasy that I might be persuaded to endorse or defend him.

Secondly, for anyone who is not familiar with the truth about him, here is a very thoroughly-researched article which will make it impossible, if you are both intelligent and civilised, for you to continue to sympathise with him. I will leave you to work out which of these qualities you lack, if, after reading it, you still sympathise with him.

Comments

Someone who calls oneself 'peterhitchensthemoralising…' has been lazily repeating the same agitating text to abuse Mr Hitchens without any facts and logic. And of course repeating is one of the most effective tools for agitation.

However, some other enthusiastic contributors are at least writing with varieties.

I just take the first three 'points' this person is trying to make or repeating to brainwash somewhat someone:

1) "The whole of Peter has been one life rage. (Against himself.) And of contorted opposing positions. Even more since joined the media and became a hack."

2) "He would never join any party that would have him. - First too young to join 1990 Thatcherites. Then they were Dads Army. - First he was too young for Dads Army. Now he is too old for Dads Army. - The man is an utter fool."

3) "Peter Hitchens is still a moralising aetheist. And a still moralising churchgoing Trotskyite. - Because he likes telling people what to do."

All three (or more) statements about our host, seems to me, are evidences that this person has not read much (litotes) what Mr Hitchens has been writing.

If I could find any bit of truth from the quotation above, I would choose the line "he likes telling people what to do". I think Mr Hitchens sometimes might feel rather strongly to tell people to *think* independently, logically and truthfully - but not what to think.

“I’m still waiting for someone to say what it is that Robinson has done or said that marks him out for special attention as a terrible person.” (John Aspinall)

Speaking to a crowd of supporters, back in his EDL days, Robinson said this:

“As I’ve said, we are here today to tell you quite loud, quite clear: every single Muslim watching this video on YouTube: on 7/7, you got away with killing and maiming British citizens; you got away with it. Next time you think about it, you better understand that we have built a network from one end of this country to the other and we will not tolerate it, and the Islamic community will feel the full force of the English Defence League if we see any of our citizens killed, maimed or hurt on British soil ever again.”

I think Robinson threatened British Muslims. What does John Aspinall think?

@Michael Wood: the 'truth', that women should expect and welcome sexual assault and rape, that only white people should be allowed any identity and that white men are the greatest thing ever, and should be allowed to be as monstrous as they wish? JP is pue, unmitigated, irredeemable evil, as bad as any ISIS terrorist, and he and his horrific death cult should be treated as the terrorists they are.

@Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth your analogy fails, it has far to little rape, and far to many foreigners for any of the gammons who voted brexit, so they could return to the 1950s, when foreigners knew their place and women and children didn't dare scream for help, as the WASP took their biblical due, in pain and flesh.

PH cackles 'Journalist!'. Well, unlike you and other 'Journalists ', including the local Huddersfield rag, he has been listening to parents, who have previously approached said rag about the horrific goings on at the school featured in the harrowing scenes of 'waterboarding ' of a Syrian refugee pupil. A real journalist who had undergone proper waterboarding and knows that reporting on Syrian matters is skewed, might make a story, an old fashioned scoop if you will, about a girl who is being home schooled because of a vicious campaign of bullying assaults by one of the boys in the video. No prizes for guessing which one. We have to rely on a person that PH cackles at, from the desk where he used to have an enquiring mind but is, like the rest of the dead tree press, shackled by enforced lack of curiosity, for something even more shocking news - including a posse of adult males threatening on social media to rape the older boy. Have a look at the screenshots and educate yourself, PH.Feel old yet?.

Douglas Oswell…."Did it never occur to you that people might cleave to someone like Peterson because he has the ability to articulate and give a voice to beliefs that they haven't the ability to put eloquently into words? In other words, that he is the reflection of their beliefs, and not the founder of them?"

Absolutely, and those that claim 'Cult' status for Peterson don't know what a cult is.
JP is appealing and rescuing generations of young men and women who have been badly raised and appallingly served and abused by our education system. He is the nearest thing the western nations have to a truthsayer and anyone who cannot see the wisdom of his works are blind fools.

‘By the way, do you remember which paper employed the “journalists” who committed a real contempt of court by writing actually and highly prejudicial stories about Levi Bellfield resulting in the trial being halted, the jury dismissed, and Bellfield let off the outstanding charges (or how long they were imprisoned for as a result – Hint: not one second!)?’

Never mind that, old chap.

What about the ‘journalists’ who viciously smeared Christopher Jefferies?

This was a disgraceful episode and Mr Hitchens, for all his enthusiasm in taking-on Justin Welby and some anonymous woman over the Bell outrage, didn’t have the vinegar to write in support of Jefferies when it actually mattered: when a *living* human was being destroyed, and a timid human at that.

Mr Hitchens, to his credit, later wrote that he was too scared to do it and (I think) apologised. Fair enough.

This is why I suspect that he is over-compensating on Robinson. The Twitter mob can ruin reputations and careers, and I’ve no doubt that if the quotation which justifies Robinson being marked-out for special attention as a terrible person were available, Mr Hitchens would offer it.

But he hasn’t.

Add to this the (quite obvious) fact that Mr Hitchens is too intelligent to fall for a smelly orthodoxy, then fear of the Twitter mob – or some such fear – could be motivating his strange and absolutist ‘him or me’ position.

If Mr Hitchens didn’t have the nerve to defend Jefferies, then his Robinson position makes perfect sense.

Dad: Now, do you want to exit to another screen, or the Foyer, perhaps just to another row?

Maybe we could pop to the loos for a few minutes and come back?!

How about we pop into the car park for a breather, then come back?!?!

We'll have to pay again, of course, and again, and…...

And we STILL won't get to see a film we want, or even one we don't in a language that suits us.

But, just look at all those happy people watching the other screens, and ours, that we've bought tickets for, and Frankfurters, and cheesy things!

Doesn't it make you feel good to think all our sacrifices have been soooooo worthwhile.

Kids: Daddy, how could you lie to us over and over again.

Exit means EXIT.

It means out of the seat, the row, up the stairs, out of the Foyer, AND the car park, OUT!

And no paying for other people's tickets, never mind for extensions, extra screens, maintenance, ongoing staff costs, and certainly not their pensions!

They don't work for us, never have done, in fact their contract says the cinema is their employer, they owe a duty to the cinema only, and always, even after they retire, and no duty to the customers, ever, so why should we pay their wages AND pensions, Daddy?!

We know we were in a film club, but we're resigning, Daddy, leaving it, and we know there's usually a dodgy clause that lets them keep the rest of the year's membership fee(s, charges, and other costs, amounting to nearly a £BILLION a week, not the £350 million they are advertising, even though even that figure is out of date and it's a few tens of millions more now just for the BASIC FEE WITHOUT ALL THE COMPULSORY ADD ONS!).

BUT NO CLUB WE'VE EVER BEEN IN HAS TRIED *THAT* SCAM OF DEMANDING PERPETUAL LIABILITIES FOR THINGS WE DIDN'T WANT IN THE FIRST PLACE AND ARE THE REASONS WE'RE LEAVING!!!

And it's not like there are even any more dodgy clauses hidden away claiming they have a right to that!!!

Dad: OK kids, I give in, you can have your way, Cinema means Cinema, and I've organised for us to stand at the back, and buy everyone another round of Frankfurters and Cheesy French things!

Dad: You don't want to go to that smelly old Zoo full of animals from all around the World that you've grown up with and love as if they are part of the family, let's go to the wonderful new 9 screen cinema, it's much cheaper, and though it's a lot more expensive it's much better value..

Kids: OK, we'll go to the 9 screen cinema as long as it's as good value as you swear blind it is and we still get as much choice and control over what we see and where we sit, and still get a choice of cheap snacks from around the world, as you insist we will, daddy.

Dad: Would I lie to my own kith and kin?!

Kids:Which films can we see?

Dad: Well, there's a nice German film with French subtitles, I know you'll love that!

Kids: But dad, we don't want to be forced to watch a German film with French subtitles, what's on the other 8 screens.

Dad: Well, there's a nice German film with French subtitles, I know you'll love that!!

Kids: But Dad, you said we could still make our own choices, what's on the other 7 screens?!

Dad: Well, there's a nice German film with French subtitles, I know you'll love that too!!!

And aren't we lucky, not only can we watch it on the other 7 screens too, we can actually now watch it on 27 screens!!!!

Kids: But we don't want to watch it on any of the screens, we want to watch films of our own choosing, from all round the world, and we're not happy paying over the odds for Frankfurters and French cheese, or paying even more for American HotDogs.

And it's awfully cramped in here, and there aren't enough seats for everyone, and they've run out of drinks because there are so many people, and now someone's set fire to the cinema because the good old British Regs were "improved" into one size fits all Cinema Regs, and..... oh and what was that loud bang from that guy who just wandered over from the other screen....

Posted by: Bill | 28 November 2018 at 03:03 PM:
"Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth | 28 November 2018 at 11:12 AM asks some pertinent questions."
"I for one would like to read Peter Hitchens' answers to them."

Actually, while he's at it, perhaps he could justify his holier than thou position by answering these questions too:

Did he (Peter Hitchens) ever:

- Physically assault or batter his brother Christopher including under the age of ten?

- Pedal on the pavement except on a cyclepath including under age ten?

- Bunk off school or play truant?

- Fail to pay the fare for a bus, tram, or train journey or access a platform without a ticket?

- Speed, ride uninsured, or break any other laws, regulations or rules on bike on motorbike?

- Break any laws or by-laws while "protesting" including Obstructing The Highway (which includes loitering on crossings over it, and preventing vehicles driving out of premises onto it, but not off it back into them)?

- Break and Enter into any premises, especially government premises, or was it just Trespassing?

- In any way aid, abet, give succour to, or in any way legitimise any child killers or murderers such as drug-runners?

- Use any "non-standard" travel documentation of any kind, or in any way pay for or obtain such documents in any non standard, non fully legitimate, non completely compliant way under all laws, rules, regulations, codes (including moral) of any countries involved in his travels, or in any way withhold or misrepresent any relevant information required to obtain them, or passage between, or within countries, or ever in any way avoid or evade any internal or border checkpoint?

- Oh, and has he ever, in any way, assisted any of his children to obtain a mortgage by loans or payments from the bank of mum and dad, that were not fully and completely notified to the lender?

>>"So not just smeared but stitched up!" -----Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth

>JM: “According to Peter it is easier to get into university than prison in Britain and yet somehow Tommy Robinson has managed the feat on multiple occasions. The politically motivated imprisonment of a journalist ***PH cackles : Journalist!**** does not concern Peter as much as that journalist's character flaws.”

---

How about:

The politically motivated imprisonment of an English citizen ***PH cackles : Citizen!****

By the way, do you remember which paper employed the “journalists” who committed a real contempt of court by writing actually and highly prejudicial stories about Levi Bellfield resulting in the trial being halted, the jury dismissed, and Bellfield let off the outstanding charges (or how long they were imprisoned for as a result – Hint: not one second!)?

Did you attack them in the same way as you attack an unsophisticated, uneducated, inexperienced, novice, citizen reporter from the wrong side of the tracks?!

>>VB:"..said..yourself..man is coming, look to..mob..will find..decent people..having to lower..standards..find themselves in..position of having to agree..with..unpleasant vitriol of this sort of man."

>***PH asks: '*Having* to agree?..no..should not pretend..this is not what they want. Nobody..making them do this..choose to..and rejoice'

---

You entirely miss Vikki b's points

Further I'm surprised a so-called self-styled Christian can't fill that "huge gap between seeing it as explicable and approving of, or apologising" with things like understanding, empathy, maybe even, dare I say it, a little Christian Charity, loving thy neighbour as thyself (and second only to God), oh, and you should really try harder to avoid bearing false witness (or can you see into Mr Robinson's soul as well as read his mind?)!

But I digress, which two wrongs do not make a right, or am I supposed to have already read your mind?

And how many wrongs would it take to turn your mate Howard Marks, who pushed £millions in drugs, no doubt to children, or did he selectively only sell to the children of Oiks and Chavs, not academics and journalists, into a despised enemy?

Remember "selective outrage"?

And as Vicki b said: double standards!

Strange how you blame terrorism on drugs, but pal up with Marks?!

And as for despising and disliking the defenders of Free Speech, Habeas Corpus, Innocent Until Proven Guilty, Magna Carta, English Bill Of Rights, Charity, and Christianity, for cowardice and folly in the face of a grave danger, words fail me (yes, I know they didn't - 383 of them!)

The whole of Peter has been one life rage. (Against himself.) And of contorted opposing positions. Even more since joined the media and became a hack.

He would never join any party that would have him. - First too young to join 1990 Thatcherites. Then they were Dads Army. - First he was too young for Dads Army. Now he is too old for Dads Army. - The man is an utter fool.

Peter Hitchens is still a moralising aetheist. And a still moralising churchgoing Trotskyite. - Because he likes telling people what to do.

And wants indentured indigenous plebs to go to High church and to do as they’re told. - His whole life he has revelled in hypocrisy.

For both these PHitchens + Farage: If there ever was a political party that did exist that cane close to his vision of one. He would viscerally hate it if ever one appeared in his vision. Or one that appeared to replace the Tory Party. And would viscerally rebel against it.

As the usual shit-for-brains-left-wing-Petomane that he is. And always was. And still is a Cultural Trotskyite that he always was.

The same for Farage and PHitchens: There are never any respectable + acceptable opinions. Both dissembling + disseminating un-respectable, non-acceptable opinions unless from Farage and PH. Again there is never a good political party good enough unless both of these creatures Fronting it.

And secretly in with Marie Le Pen. And Trumps shiller lapdog poodle. Nothing is a good idea and respectable, acceptable opinion unless both Farage and PH are espousing them.

@Rick Green and @John Aspinall are right. Tommy Robinson is too left wing. Bought by the lobbies.

And also Tommy Robinson + PH dont mind immigration from Eastern European and immigration from everywhere else, and the latter just as long as they go to Church. And do as they’re told. - The indigenous wont go. And who can’t or won’t defend Christian heritage and tradition.

PH’s whole life has been life long rage of contorted and confected postures. - A Cultural Trotskyite rebelling against themselves. A DONT BE FOOLED BY ANYTHING PH EVER POSTURES TO BE.

Like his book Rage Against God. - He just likes telling people what to do. He is revelling in against himself. The same multiculti, multisexualist.

Still Moralising in his rage as a Trotskyite and Trotskyite churchgoer. And moralising as an atheist Trotskyite.

PS: And it is good to know Daily Mail, MOS, PH and LBC and the media, et al, really do know about my clothing and clothing tastes.

@Jeremy Bonnington Jagworth,
You are seriously comparing Tommy Robinson with George Orwell?
I think this is one of those occasions where I need to add nothing further. Thank you for illustrating the absolute & utter absurdity of the "we love Tommy" brigade.

"Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth" [*** J.B-J: When?!***]
"I look forward to your concern, and detailed outrage for the people responsible for the children blown up in the Manchester arena, or London Bridge or the increasing numbers of people killed or beheaded or woman raped across Europe. But I won’t hold my breath.....
Posted by: Sally | 28 November 2018 at 03:24 PM

Has Peter Hitchens never heard the expressions "My enemy's enemy is my friend" or "The end justifies the means."? Does he not know that Britain gave material assistance to Stalin during WW2? When we are facing an enemy as dangerous as militant Islam, we cannot be too fussy about who our allies are.

***PH writes: Great, that's him clearly on the wrong side of the civilisation line, then. When did two wrongs start to make a right? ****

I'd like to know what exactly makes you assert such a thing Hitchens? Nowhere have I stated my support for Robinson & nor will I. That is because on the whole I do not.
I do, however think that he did a great service in helping to expose & report on the cases in which he is best known for. This is made all the more potent by the damning silence that eminated from the MSM, that is until it was out in the open. And even then only begrudgingly so.

***PH notes : 1.Avid Fan writes: 'Nowhere have I stated my support for Robinson & nor will I.' 2. Avid Fan writes, a few lines later '2. 'I do, however think that he did a great service in helping to expose & report on the cases in which he is best known for.' Apart from the clear evidence that 'Avid Fan' is a Yaxley-Lennon supporter shown above, whence this fantasy that Yaxley-Lennon was the one who brought these cases into the open? This was in fact done by Amndrew Norfolk, who began his investigations in 2010 and began publishing them in 2011 in 'The Times' newspaper when as far as I know Mr Yaxley-Lennon was busy on, er, other things. . I am not aware that they relied on Mr Yaxley-Lennon for their investigations. Perhaps, if they did, Mr 'Avid fan' could provide the evidence of his involvement. ***. ***

I also believe that the establishment acted disgracefully - & continues to do so with regards to Robinson, regardless of past misdemenours.

Now as I'm well aware that 2 wrongs indeed don't make a right - & have never claimed that they do - could you Hitchens now answer my original question: Are you, Hitchens willing to apply your own logic to supporters of Corbyn, McDonnell & Abbot with regards to being supported by civilised persons?
I look forward to your kind reply.

Jay M "The reason I'm bringing this up is that I think you've applied the same dogmatic belief towards Tommy Robinson......" I agree with your comments. I am actually thinking to take PH's advise and to stop reading his articles and books. PH, as a women where is our indignation / rage about the rape gangs in your own country, shame on you. Is Tommy Robinson a saint? I doubt it, but as other people have written as least he has the courage to bring to light some very dark things that are happening in your own backyard.

I thought you were referring to choice of party should an election be the result of the present mess.
All I know about Robinson is that he appears to attract some surprising support from those of religious inclinations. Although in certain cases it was not surprising...

Were Robinson to take the political route to make his case, would you vote for him?

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.